Talk:Oakleigh railway station/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MaxnaCarta (talk · contribs) 05:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there as the nominator I will be avaliable to act on any feedback given NotOrrio (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @NotOrrio, sorry for the delay. Will provide initial thoughts soon. Thanks — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NotOrrio This article needs a thorough copyedit, just in the lead "approximately" was spelled incorrectly. Please can you do a thorough copyedit yourself in order meet criteria 1a? I do not fail articles unless there is some barrier to passing the nominator refuses to fix and I am only too happy to work with you to fix this one up, including some copyediting myself. As the article stands I feel as nominator you should first please check each word against the MOS and use a tool such as Grammarly or Quillbot to detect any errors and then ping me. Happy to assist also after that. Thanks! — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

went through and did a round of copy editing NotOrrio (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've done quite a bit more. Some reviewers like to make long lists of proposed edits they require done to pass, I feel it is often a waste of both our time to do that. If I see an issue, I fix it. Please review my many edits in the history and see what you think. Some re-writing in active voice, commas, removing double spaces, etc. Dates must be consistent, some were Friday 22 Jan some were 22 Jan: dates must be a consistent format and without the day.

@NotOrrio: please address comments and we should be good to go — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ill will get back to this later I have three articles being reviewed rn and one user has already provided feedback and placed it on hold NotOrrio (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

read through copy edits mostly looked good although i reverted the sentence about the station car parks also removed some sentences as i couldnt find sources and they didnt add much onto the article anyway NotOrrio (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

can you please tick which comments you have actioned @NotOrrio and write comments where it has not been done or what alternative you propose — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NotOrrio Are you still completing this? Please let me know. I would like you to respond to each review comment and let me know what you have addressed and how, cheers — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and addressed most of the feedback i will address them individually again once i work on an article being reviewed by another user NotOrrio (talk) 11:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

Throughout 2018–2019, Oakleigh received a major upgrade in order to bring the station up to modern standards. This upgrade includes building two new modern concourses (one on each side) in place of the existing ones. The subway was upgraded, and lifts were installed to comply with DDA guidelines. - a few issues. First, the source is a press statement from the premiers office. I therefore question its neutrality - Premier releases promote the government agenda. Using this to state the upgrade was "major" and "bring the station up to modern standards"...I do not really disagree with that statement in terms of fact; however, it does seem rather interpretative and based on information from a government press release promoting their projects/policies. A better source is needed.

regarding above, please remove a claim stating it complies with DDA. First, abbreviations need to be spelt out in the first use, and then an abbreviation is parenthesised. Second, claiming a station complies with a statute requires a citation, and I do not think such a claim can be substantiated. Please remove this part.

You have fixed this. Good work. I changed the text slightly to read: Throughout 2018–2019, Oakleigh was upgraded and modernised. Two concourses were built, lifts were installed, and the underpass was refurbished. Two heritage-listed buildings were maintained as originally built

~~In 2018, the former platform 1 was removed as it was mostly underutilised says who?~~

Fixed

Spotcheck

[1]/[2]: Y ? Look, I will probably let this slide because it is not a claim that is likely to be challenged. I also have to abide by the doctrine of common sense here and I believe the source is likely to be accurate. However, it is a blog and self-published – technically this is not an appropriate source. I would like you to please see if there is a better source to substantiate passenger numbers. There may simply not be a better source, because it seems the author got the stats directly from the Department of Transport in Vic. While original research, no mainstream media outlet is likely to have reported on these. Because its not controversial, I will tick this if no better source can be found but I would like your comment on this.
[4] good
[5] good
[6] good
[8] good
[10] Y ? What part of this sentence is the source substantiating? What claim? This source does not support any claim about heritigate protection or the railway station ticket office or waiting room. It discusses the shops around the station but not the station itself to any degree relevant to the sentence here?
[11] good
Y By 1915, a new station building had been constructed to the same style as Box Hill, Essendon, Spotswood and Heidelberg, and a new platform provided on the south side, plus a fifth track for engines to run around their consists N: This statement needs a source.
[33] good
[39]-[45] good
I have added a citation for Oakleigh station consists of two side platforms that are connected by a pedestrian subway, previously, platform 1 was an island platform, and the station consisted of three platforms. This was not supported by the Pakenham Line reference. It is very important for future GA nominations that you cite such statements from a source. I had zero doubts what you wrote was factually correct. I also understand these railway line/station articles are typically completed by editors with a passion for trains and are almost always correct. However, we still must take great care to substantiate all statements by a decent source. Some editors may have refused to pass the article or quick-failed due to these issues. Another editor of train stations had many of their articles fail for this reason. I will always do what I can to pass an article, but this is important for the future.
I have had to remove Both platforms are about 160 metres (.1mi), long enough for a seven car High Capacity Metro Train. It was not supported by any source. I can verify the information using Google maps. This information is technically true. However if being asked to apply the GA criteria for original research and verified sourcing, I cannot leave this sentence here and mark the criteria as met. Please do remove if you can find a source for this.
- Comment: I was able to find multiple source suggesting the platforms were long enough for a 7 car hcmt as the platform was only recently extended although none of the sources state the exact value
  - https://danielbowen.com/2019/01/21/how-long-is-a-railway-station-platform/ this source suggests that the platforms are 160m post extension although it doesnt say that directly additionally this source is a blog although it is written by a key public transport advocate in melbourne
  - https://www.railexpress.com.au/metro-train-mock-ups-in-melbourne-to-trial-accessibility-features/ this article also suggests that the platforms will be 160m long although it doesnt directly say this

Note for second opinion

I have decided to seek a second opinion due to the high use of primary sources. That said, I do not believe any of the information is incorrect or inaccurate. Nor is anything controversial or subject to challenge. I'd like someone more familiar with train line articles to give this the stamp of approval. Cheers — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer this second opinion. Here are my comments about the sources:

Vicsig should not be used as a source. It is a fansite and has been discussed at WT:AUTS.
Same applies to VictorianRailways.net.
The City of Glen Eira citation seems to have the wrong URL.
Does reference 1, " Estimated Annual Patronage by Network Segment Financial Year 2005-2006 to 2018-19" have a better link than Google Drive? I would stay away from that, unless that Google Drive page is linked on the Department of Transport website.
The Philip Mallis website should not be used as a source, as that is a blog.
Reference 7, "Oakleigh Station". Public Transport Victoria. Retrieved 13 February 2023., does not have a working URL.
- Same applies to references 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, and 45.
Reference 18, "Victorian Railways diagram 4'22", is not verifiable. It is not clear what this source is.
Reference 20 does not verify the paragraph it is on. That reference is a picture and it seems to be original research to say all that based on a picture.

I am not concerned about the level of primary sourcing. There is a mix of state government and local government sources. I am more worried about the fan sites/unreliable sources which are used, plus the number of URLs that are dead or incorrect. Steelkamp (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelkamp that's a good point. Whilst I have had a few recent issues myself (which are currently being fixed) I like to use Trove. You can use vicsig as a reference to find dates then use Trove as the source for the article to back up what they've said. It's like using wikipedia in an essay. You can use it to find information but you should then reference the actual source rather than Wikipedia. HoHo3143 (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelkamp I’m leaning towards failing this article and letting the nominator work on it for a while and come back to it. I don’t feel comfortable passing. Would you fail this one? I haven’t done so before. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That would be a reasonable course of action. Steelkamp (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.